systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes

Quality

53%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

22%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description critically fails to explain what the skill actually does - it only describes when to use it. Without knowing the capabilities (debugging methodology, root cause analysis, log inspection, etc.), Claude cannot make an informed decision about whether this skill is appropriate. The description reads more like a usage constraint than a skill description.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Systematically diagnoses bugs through log analysis, stack trace inspection, and hypothesis testing' before the 'Use when' clause.

Expand trigger terms to include common user phrases like 'error', 'crash', 'not working', 'debug', 'broken', 'exception'.

Restructure to follow the pattern: '[What it does]. Use when [triggers].' - currently only the trigger portion exists.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions - only vague language like 'encountering any bug' and 'unexpected behavior' without specifying what the skill actually does (e.g., analyze logs, trace execution, identify root causes).	1 / 3
Completeness	The description only addresses 'when' (before proposing fixes) but completely fails to explain 'what' the skill does. There is no indication of the actual capabilities or actions this skill performs.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant natural keywords users might say ('bug', 'test failure', 'unexpected behavior'), but missing common variations like 'error', 'crash', 'broken', 'not working', 'debug', 'fix'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The phrase 'before proposing fixes' provides some distinction as a diagnostic/analysis step, but 'bug', 'test failure', and 'unexpected behavior' are broad terms that could overlap with debugging, testing, or error-handling skills.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Implementation

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a strong, well-structured debugging skill with excellent workflow clarity and actionability. The four-phase approach with explicit gates and the '3+ failures = architectural problem' heuristic are particularly valuable. Minor verbosity in the rationalizations and red flags sections prevents a perfect conciseness score, but the content earns its place overall.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy (e.g., multiple tables restating similar points, repeated 'STOP' warnings). The rationalizations table and red flags section overlap significantly. Some sections could be tightened while preserving clarity.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable guidance with specific bash examples for diagnostic instrumentation, clear phase-by-phase instructions, and explicit criteria for each step. The multi-component debugging example is copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit phases, clear success criteria table, validation checkpoints ('If fix doesn't work → STOP'), and feedback loops (3+ failures triggers architectural review). The 'Iron Law' and phase gates enforce proper sequencing.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-structured with clear overview, phases broken into digestible sections, and appropriate references to supporting files (root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md) and related skills. Navigation is straightforward with one-level-deep references.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: vgeshel/local-skills
Commit: c10c616

Reviewed: about 1 month ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.